Once again, as deputies of representation, we turn to you. As you know, the General Synod of Rijnsburg/Nunspeet has decided not to designate a calling church. The synod did not take this far-reaching decision lightly. It was done because, in the opinion of the synod, following the withdrawal at synod of the interim model and the lack of sufficient support for the so-called A/B model, there is no longer any other joint perspective for the future to continue together without further ado. Moreover, the call to adhere to synod resolutions taken did not find a response. The synod felt that in this crisis situation, another synod could not simply be convened and continue as if nothing had happened. The synod drew the consequence that therefore no calling church could be designated either.
The church council of Broeksterwoude-Petrus has requested conditional revision of this decision from deputies of representation. Some other congregations have joined this revision request. The church council has requested to consult on this matter with Mr Bügel as its spokesman and a representation of the church council.
When we as deputies of representation received this message on 25 June, we called an additional meeting as soon as possible. At this meeting, we drew the conclusion that we would need knowledge from outside the deputation when assessing this request. We therefore asked some experts for advice and informed the church council of Broeksterwoude-Petrus of this step. As the holiday period had now started, we thereby indicated that we would come up with a substantive response after the holiday period.
Before the holiday period was over, Broeksterwoude's counsel, lawyer J.R. Bügel, had already initiated summary proceedings. As deputies of representation we very much regret that Broeksterwoude-Petrus chose to go to the civil courts. We would like to emphasise that, contrary to the suggestion made in an earlier letter by Broeksterwoude-Petrus, deputies have not shared this case with the press.
Now that others have gone to the civil courts, we deputies have asked ourselves how we should relate to this. Because of the threat of summary proceedings, is it wise, as deputies, to either reconvene the now-closed synod or to appoint a calling church ourselves? A proposal in the latter direction was made by several experts. At the same time, however, those experts indicated that, strictly speaking, we do not have the mandate to do so. To make an a priori decision as deputies that contradicts the decision-making of the concluded synod did not seem right to us. We therefore decided not to do so, but instead to await the summary proceedings.
The hearing in summary proceedings has now taken place. During the hearing, the interim relief judge did not yet give a ruling. However, he did give an 'advice', namely to designate a calling church after all. In doing so, he stated, "This marriage seems to be at an end after one hundred and fifty years. Prevent divorce from becoming a fighting divorce. Arrange it together."
Those last words we would like to underline wholeheartedly. The rift in our denomination has now become clearly visible. Let us face that reality and, in doing so, let us prevent the rift that has been drawn from being accompanied by strife and litigation.
We also have to relate to the first part of the judge's opinion. Now, it is still not our mandate to convene the already closed synod or to appoint a calling church. But precisely because we want to prevent the rift that is developing from being accompanied by strife, we want the current legal battle to end as soon as possible. Of the two options - reconvening the already-closed synod or appointing a calling church ourselves - the latter step seems to us the smallest in terms of impact.
All this considered, we as deputies have taken the following position:
I. In order to prevent the matter of whether or not to designate a calling church from leading to further legalisation and thus also dishonouring the Name of the Lord, deputies representing the churches have taken the position, having heard the judge's 'advice' during the summary proceedings that served on 25 August 2025, to designate the church of Hoogeveen as a calling church for a subsequent synod.
II. Four of the five deputies for representation, namely pastors Buijs, Fokkema, Van Gent and Van der Zwan, also announced their intention to step down as deputies for the following reasons:
- the position taken by deputies under I regarding the calling church goes against what the General Synod expressed on 3 June 2025;
- in their view, it is not part of the mandate of deputies of representation to overturn a synod decision;
- However, solely to avoid further legal battles, they have nevertheless felt compelled to do so;
- for the perception of these deputies, their credibility at this point is in question.
Deputies would like to elaborate on this sweeping position.
Deputies of representation conveyed the position under I to the church council of Broeksterwoude-Petrus. For all five deputies, we are convinced that we could not act and decide differently as expressed above on the point of designating a calling church. In doing so, we emphasise that, despite the fact that with this position we are going against the synod's decision-making, the further statements of the synod and their underlying motivation remain unchanged. In this regard, we refer to a passage from Synod Report 6: 'This difficult situation inevitably raises the question: does article 31 K.O. still function if practice shows otherwise? And when that is in question, how can the synod still lead the church body in line with article 30 K.O. ('to deal with what could not be dealt with in the lesser, or what belongs to the churches of the superior assembly in general')?' Nothing has changed about the reality of this passage. Nor, therefore, to the reality of the crisis and the responsibility explicitly given to local churches in decision-making.
At the same time, this position represents an impossible split for 4 of the 5 deputies, reflected in the position under II. While the synod clearly stated not to designate a calling church, it is now being demanded to do so. That synod decision was not an omission, but a deliberate majority decision. Deputies still consider it entirely unchurchly for one church to sue the synod in civil court for this.
At the same time, deputies have heard the words of the interim judge indicating that the marriage of the churches is over after one hundred and fifty years and calling for divorce not to degenerate further into a fighting divorce. And however much the wrong forum, deputies share this view. In this impasse, we have seen no other way out than by necessity appointing the calling church ourselves. This step, which deputies are willing to take, already crosses the line, but is less significant than convening a church assembly that no longer exists.
Unfortunately, the position we took proved insufficient for the church council of Broeksterwoude-Petrus as plaintiff to end the summary proceedings. From our desire to prevent further legalisation precisely, we also deeply regret this. It means that our proposal has been rejected and we now have to await the outcome of the summary proceedings in which the judge has to weigh all the arguments put forward. As indicated, four deputies intend to step down. However, they do not wish to leave their posts prematurely pending the summary proceedings.
In conclusion. Whatever place each of us occupies in the church, the current situation fills each of us with sorrow and concern. We would like to make an urgent appeal to all of you to avoid any kind of conflict and bitterness in everything that is going on now. It is our heartfelt prayer that the Lord will continue to show His grace to all 181 congregations of our denomination. Let us all dedicate each other to Him in our prayers.
With brotherly greetings,
deputies representation
president, Rev P.D.J. Buijs
assessor I, Rev A. van der Zwan
assessor II, Rev W.J. van Gent
scribe I, Rev J. Oosterbroek
scribe II, Rev A.D. Fokkema
